An American Journalism Review post-mortem on coverage of the Duke rape case brought by disgraced prosecutor Michael Nifong contains some telling — and damning — quotes.
First up: Former New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent: “It was too delicious a story. It conformed too well to too many preconceived notions of too many in the press: white over black, rich over poor, athletes over non-athletes, men over women, educated over non-educated. Wow. That’s a package of sins that really fit the preconceptions of a lot of us.”
And then there’s this gem:
“We fell into a stereotype of the Duke lacrosse players,” says Newsweek’s Evan Thomas. “It’s complicated because there is a strong stereotype [that] lacrosse players can be loutish, and there’s evidence to back that up. There’s even some evidence that that the Duke lacrosse players were loutish, and we were too quick to connect those dots.”
But he adds: “It was about race. Nifong’s motivations clearly were rooted in his need to win black votes. There were tensions between town and gown, that part was true. The narrative was properly about race, sex and class… We went a beat too fast in assuming that a rape took place… We just got the facts wrong. The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong.”
The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong. That says worlds about Newsweek’s ideological slant—and its willingness to ignore “truthiness” in service of ideology. Remember the magazine’s inaccurate report about Koran-flushing, for which the magazine later had to apologize?
As The Wall Street Journal‘s James Taranto points out, Thomas’ defense sounds a lot like the infamous “Fake But Accurate” defense of memos used in the “60 Minutes” hit piece on George Bush’s service in the National Guard.
All of which offers a useful reminder that, no matter what impression might be left by initial charges, sometimes the truth turns out to be rather different. So as much as I (and no doubt you) abhor animal abuse, maybe it would be a good idea to withhold judgment about Michael Vick until there’s an actual conviction—if there is one.
Reader Comments:
...and in today’s news Vick was disinvited to training camp. And at the Tour de France, one of the leading contenders flunked a blood transfusion test, which caused the cops to raid his hotel.
It’s like an arms race between the governing bodies of the sports and the competitors, with the governing bodies always one step behind.
I too agree with Chris. I don’t boycott professional sports. I don’t take it that seriously.
Still, I’m fully aware that high ticket prices, bet rigging, steroids, violence, extreme unsportsmanlike competitiveness, salmonella in the tailgating meat products, houligans, and a general lack of redeeming value to society, all plague sports, so I do make an effort not to support them. Support your local Symphony instead, or your local midget mud wrestlers.
At least the midget mud wrestlers are likely to be nice people, and the admission price is likely to be quite reasonable.
Bart is probably saying not to rush to judgment over Michael Vick, so that he is not demonized and character assassinated until after the verdict is rendered. Nice argument but difficult to apply to Vick, who became a public figure and a lightning rod for criticism the minute he stepped into the arena, long before dogfighting allegations.
I must agree with Chris on his point about professional sports. I stopped watching any of it several years ago. The thug culture that has replaced what was once, at least superficially, the code of sportsmanship, is what turns me off. It’s like watching professional wrestling except, the “professionals” who infect the NFL, NBA and baseball actually take themselves seriously.
I believe this is one of the reasons so many people have turned to sports like soccer, golf and even NASCAR. They may be insufferably boring to watch, but at least you don’t have to worry about drivers flashing gang signs while they victory hump a rivals car hood.
Please no more Vick--he is not worth worrying about. Simply a pro football player who likes to kill dogs. Neither issue is of world-shaking importance. It pales in comparison to the betrayal of justice by prosecutor Nifong, lies by the perps, lack of player support by the ivory tower Duke and the effect on the accused.
Oh yeah, I forgot this gem...Bart ends his post above with, “maybe it would be a good idea to withhold judgment about Michael Vick until there’s an actual conviction.”
WHY?! After he’s convicted and punished, there’s no point in complaining about the guy. At that point our harsh criticisms would be kicking a man when he’s down. What am I missing here? Does this make sense to anyone other than me?
Yes, I have to agree that Michael Vick is innocent until proven guilty. but.... it is also true that he has not issued a convincing denial yet in the dog fighting case, and his many documented instances of crappy behavior do not endear him to me. He comes across as spoiled, egotistical, and enamored with the romance of thuggery.
All this does not mean that he is guilty. But it does mean that racial issues aside, he is fairly typical of all I despise in the world of professional sports and why I refuse to watch games in person or on tv. Yeah, there is also that steroid issue that bedevils baseball. I choose to boycott. it’s a free country and I prefer to not be a part of the problem.
Ed, the NAACP is seldom right these days. Unlike when I was a liberal college student and supported their every move. Time does wonder for common sense as well as changes organizations for the worse.
Obama’s loss to Hillary will have much to do with the NAACP & cronies.
Actually, the media spin was that she was just a struggling single mother attending college and stripping was the only way she could make ends meet. They clung to that “narrative’ tenaciously for months.
It was the alternative media and FOX news that exposed her sketchy past.
And while we’re on the subject of loutish behavior, why is it everyone is so quick to condemn the white jocks for engaging in drunken foolishness yet, not one word has been uttered about the monumental stupidity of women who take off their clothes for money in front of a room full of drunken men?
And that applies to ALL women who do this.
Patrick,
Not precisely in disagreement. I mean, she probably finds those rich dudes with their goofy parties something to envy and despise.
Then again, quite possible it is nothing more than money. Nothing personal.
I’m totally aware that street people use lies and manipulation as survival tools. I just don’t know if the dippy-doodles from New Jersey at Duke understand that. Maybe they think strippers do it all for the love of white boys.
We do know they got into a heated argument, so it sounds like it was a series of unrelated events that just came together in a perfect storm.
I agree your view makes good sense. We also know the stripper’s partner contacted an agent in New York to see if she could make money off all the hoopla. Talk about mercenary.
However, if you don’t like my take on it, you surely must not like the NAACP viewpoint. Weren’t they the ones who suggested she was just a hardworking mother trying to put herself through school ?
ED: “The preposterous notion that loutish behavior from the very rich would not trouble a disadvantaged woman who sees the huge gap between the options open to one group of people and the lack of options to another group of people.” Surely you jest?
The woman, as described by news accounts, had no redeeming qualities. She hired herself out as a party stripper, was drunk and drugged, plus told lies to make money off the Duke students. It was never about a crime, instead it was always about suing the families and Duke University for profit. Money rules this situation.
Post Your Comments:
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.